[Just responding to bullets where I have particular opinions:]
At Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:13:46 -0500, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> * I'm ambivalent about having a monolithic "racket" or "rico" command.
> A small downside is that monolitic does feel more like a closed
> platform. A small upside is that it looks (deceptively) friendly in demos.
I think `rico' should have a plug-in interface (registration via
"info.rkt"), so that it can better serve as the one-stop executable for
all development tasks.
> * The suggested automagical games like transparently translating
> filename extensions. A variation on this would be to *stop* having
> filename extensions in things like require specs. Instead, to turn what
> essentially is a file reference into a filename, an ".rkt" would be
> appended. As a backward-compatibility measure, ".ss" would be permitted
> in the spec, and either (I'm not sure which) would prevent ".rkt" being
> added, or would try one extension first and fallback to the other.
There are many normalization and transition problems here. Although I
don't like automagical conversions, the transition path looks way too
painful unless we equate ".ss" and ".rkt" in module paths. For example,
a lot of code that refers to collection- and Planet-based libraries
using ".ss" forms.